One of my biggest fears about learning this language is that it will die in 10 years when everyone in Japan learns English due to a high amount of exposure through the internet. It's irrational to think it will happen that quickly, but it's gotta happen sometime, right?

Tzadeck wrote:

egoplant wrote:

but it's gotta happen sometime, right?

The only way it could possibly happen in our lifetime is if all the Japanese people were killed for some reason--nuclear war maybe.

Otherwise, Japanese will be around well after we die.

Well people keep saying their economy is mucked, wouldn't that be a good reason to adopt another language?

egoplant wrote:

One of my biggest fears about learning this language is that it will die in 10 years when everyone in Japan learns English due to a high amount of exposure through the internet. It's irrational to think it will happen that quickly, but it's gotta happen sometime, right?

Almost everyone just uses Japanese websites so I don't see this happening..

Many people criticize Japan for being bad at English but there is a reason: they don't need to learn English.

Most Asian countries speak English better than Japan because those countries suck so its citizens learn English so that they can get away and move to a nice English speaking 1st world country where there are more opportunities.

A condition has to be met before Japan will improve their English literacy rates: the Japanese economy has to go downhill and the country transitions from a rich 1st world country to a poor 3rd world country. It is only then do the Japanese have a motivation for learning English (assuming America hasn't become the Wild West yet).

I don't see that happening soon because it's mostly rich old white guys who are screwing around with other people's money and Asians tend to save more and be isolated, just like their languages and their internet.

activeaero wrote:

2.  Japan has a fairly broad income distribution/good income equality.  A society with a broad income distribution handles economic downturns better than a society that doesn't.  Or in other words when everyone becomes poorer together at more or less the same rate it is easier to adjust.

That's an arbitrary statement if I ever heard one. What could possibly be the logical connection between income equality and the ability to adjust to economic downturns?

What do you even mean by "adjusting" to an economic downturn? The only thing I can think of is spending withing your means. Which Japan is most definitely not doing.

Japan's problem IS the failure to adjust to economic conditions. It's been two decades of almost no economic growth and continuous deficit spending as if they're the fastest growing economy on the planet.

Last edited by Stansfield123 (2013 January 21, 11:22 pm)

Stansfield123 wrote:

activeaero wrote:

2.  Japan has a fairly broad income distribution/good income equality.  A society with a broad income distribution handles economic downturns better than a society that doesn't.  Or in other words when everyone becomes poorer together at more or less the same rate it is easier to adjust.

That's an arbitrary statement if I ever heard one. What could possibly be the logical connection between income equality and the ability to adjust to economic downturns?

What do you even mean by "adjusting" to an economic downturn? The only thing I can think of is spending withing your means. Which Japan is most definitely not doing.

Japan's problem IS the failure to adjust to economic conditions. It's been two decades of almost no economic growth and continuous deficit spending as if they're the fastest growing economy on the planet.

I'm not talking in regards to being able to adjust their economic model.  I'm talking in regards to descending into "social chaos".  Societies that have more income equality have less division amongst themselves thus lowering the chance of some great breakdown of society when times get a little rough.  Societies with great income inequality are more likely to have conflicts that arise from such divisions in society in such a situation. 

And I completely agree that their economic model is severely flawed .  No arguments there.

activeaero wrote:

I'm not talking in regards to being able to adjust their economic model.  I'm talking in regards to descending into "social chaos".  Societies that have more income equality have less division amongst themselves thus lowering the chance of some great breakdown of society when times get a little rough.  Societies with great income inequality are more likely to have conflicts that arise from such divisions in society in such a situation.

Two points:
1. I disagree with that too. Yes, the principal cause of societal instability, for the past 100 years or so, have been socialist revolution. But saying that income inequality in turn caused those revolutions is reversing cause and effect.

In reality, the very notion that income inequality is bad for society (divisive, immoral, etc.) originated with Marxism. The fact that this ideology then went on to cause the societal breakdowns it purported to prevent does the opposite of proving that claim.

2. What are you basing the claim that Japan has "good income equality" on? The have roughly the same income disparity other developed countries have. They rank near the middle by most formulas that attempt to measure this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … e_equality (last two tables are the easiest to navigate)

I do think Japan is one of the most cohesive nations on the planet. But that's because they have relatively little ethnic, cultural or even political disparity, compared to other nations.

IceCream wrote:

There can be a connection, depending on the circumstances. For example, if the problem is lack of demand. Spending patterns of the rich and poor tend to be different. In a depression, the rich tend to save more rather than investing or buying more luxury goods. But the poor don't have that option, because they still need to get by, and so are more likely to continue to spend everything they get. It's one of the reasons that raising the amount of money the average person has could help to fix the problem.

Right. If the problem is that people are saving too much (or rather, aren't in enough debt), then taking everything from the people who earned their wealth and giving it all to the people who haven't earned anything will cause the economy to pick right up.

It's odd, though, that this exact method of kick-starting the economy has been implemented several time, and the only thing it resulted in was starvation and gulags.

IceCream wrote:

The question then becomes what it means to "earn" your money.

It means gaining it through mutually beneficial, voluntary trade with others.

IceCream wrote:

Stansfield123 wrote:

IceCream wrote:

The question then becomes what it means to "earn" your money.

It means gaining it through mutually beneficial, voluntary trade with others.

i don't really call the choice between working for someone else under unfair terms and starving / being hounded on the dole until you do get a job a voluntary one.

I do. But that's because I know that the default condition of an animal, on Planet Earth, is to struggle for survival. The only thing that elevates us from that condition is reason. And reason can only work if our choices are voluntary. A person doesn't have much use for reason if he's not allowed to make his own choices.

When you think that having to work hard to survive gives you the right to start dealing with others against their will, that's when you are nothing more than an irrational animal, and are bound to end up having to live like one too. That is why pure socialism always leads to people reverting to the natural condition of irrational animals: because it is a political system in which interaction is 100% by force. Reason is eliminated 100% of the time.

The fact that you don't want interaction to be 100% by force, you're satisfied with 50% force and 50% rational choice, does not make you any more right than a communist. In fact, to be honest, makes you even more wrong: at least the communist is following a principle he believes is right. You obviously know the principle is wrong (why else would you be against following it 100%), and yet, you want to live by it half the time.

Living in Japan for several years now I'd say it's not dying, but it's changing more and more. Traditions are slowly fading (very slowly).
Shougatsu (Japanese New Year's Day) is a good example!

Tzadeck wrote:

True of every culture ever, haha.

Totally agree!

Stansfield123 wrote:

[clearly using Objectist definitions]

IceCream wrote:

...leading to the ability for some people to trade less fairly than they would have to otherwise. The choice is only between forcing everyone to make fair trades, or allowing those with power to force everyone else to make unfair trades. [emph mine; clearly not Objectivist definitions]

So IceCream and Stansfield123 (and the others debating socioeconomic causes to potential culture decline) don't waste more time misunderstanding each other, let me just clarify a few definitions:

"Force" - Stansfield123 means threat of death by the hands of men (or something that eventually escalates to this). For example, you are "forced" to pay your income taxes because otherwise you will be fined, jailed if you refuse to pay, and finally shot and killed if you refuse arrest- as deemed the law by society (ie. man).

In constrast, IceCream is refering to something more along the lines of being exploited by man (but not harmed by another man directly).  This may apply to needs- for example, you are "forced" to pay too much for bread because you are starving and will die if you don't get food (but it would be by the hand of nature, not man).  This also applies to wants- for example, you are "forced" to pay a lot for an iPod because of price fixing.

"Fair trade" - IceCream means a trade where both sides give and receive something of equal value (according to a 3rd party's concept of their value). One party may feel like they're being "forced (IceCream)" into it (because they can't find a cheaper iPod for sale or because they're hungry and need food) but they are not being "forced (Stansfield123)" because no man is literally threatening them with violence or something that can escalate to it (eg. a fine).

Stansfield123 means a trade where neither party was "forced (Stansfield123)" into making the deal and instead chose to act voluntarily; even if the conditions of the deal seem highly unfavorable to a third party, the people performing the trade clearly think they are profiting from making the trade (and if not they're free to back out).


Once more:

A) A grocer is only willing to trade a loaf of bread to a starving man for one million dollars because he knows the starving man will pay any price.
B) A law is passed requiring grocers offer bread to any starving man for at most $10.

By IceCream's definitions, (A) is a forced, unfair trade. (B) is somewhat undefined but I'd wager she's okay with it.

By Stansfield123's definitions (A) is perfectly fine (even if it appears extremely unbalanced to a neutral, 3rd party) and (B) is a forced, unfair trade.

Last edited by overture2112 (2013 January 28, 4:47 pm)